LalitModi was charged and pleaded guilty to possession of 400 grams of cocaine, assault and kidnapping in 1985 while he was a student at Duke University, USA. He pleaded guilty on all charges and was sentenced to two years in prison. However, he did not serve any prison time and came back to India in 1986 after being released on probation.

In 2007 a PIL was filed in Mumbai High court challenging his position in BCCI on pretext of his criminal history. Though the court refused to unseat Modi, it asked the BCCI "to implement stringent regulatory measures so that those involved in criminal cases, not just illegal drugs but other serious charges have no place in administration". [3][4]

__________________12.6 Syed Rasel to Sangakkara, OUT: What a delivery, completely fooled Sangakkara, first five delivery were the outswingers and now, this one comes in sharply, Sangakkara tries to left it and ball hits the off stump, top class bowling!

From his appearance, he seems to be a wicked person. But appearance may be misleading,of course. As it seems,BCCI is kind of destroying cricket: Pakistan is done, Zim is dead, Kenya the same, NZ is going nowhere, WI is a wasted talent, Bangladesh is not improving, Ranatunga is busted, no new nation is adding to the list of quality cricket. BCCI is not the only one to blame; but they have a fare share of all the misdeeds, especially because of their monopoly in the world cricket. Lalit Modi gets some credit as well.

Originally Posted by Baundule
From his appearance, he seems to be a wicked person. But appearance may be misleading,of course. As it seems,BCCI is kind of destroying cricket: Pakistan is done, Zim is dead, Kenya the same, NZ is going nowhere, WI is a wasted talent, Bangladesh is not improving, Ranatunga is busted, no new nation is adding to the list of quality cricket. BCCI is not the only one to blame; but they have a fare share of all the misdeeds, especially because of their monopoly in the world cricket. Lalit Modi gets some credit as well.

there goes blame bcci for everything brigade ! it must be boring to have only one villain in the wide world ! and how is bcci responsible for all those things ?
even if I concede that somehow with the help of CIA and martians bcci is doing all these, how does destroying cricket serve their purpose ?
ever heard of the ICC ?? they are the ones responsible for spreading cricket around the world. and last I heard ICC has much more money than it ever had thanks to BCCI.
ICC used to be bankrupt org before dalmiya took over in mid 90's.
currently, there are no bcci men in the ICC top positions and there hasn't been one for a long time.

returning to topic :--
modi also has a record of hooliganism in India in his college/school days iirc, read it somewhere.
his papa or somebody had to shell out some serious cash to keep him out of court.

Bottom line is Modi has been successful as an executive for BCCI as well regarding the IPL. Reports and figure clearly shows that he has done well for the organization. He has made them richer than they ever were before. That is what matters. Yes he can have a temper, he can be arrogant and flamboyant but goddamit he is successful in what he has done for BCCI as an organization. The fact that he is an arrogant SOB and a has a temper just adds more to his "resume" as far my personal view is concerned. I dint know these things about him, never even knew how he looked like and until today thought of Lalit Modi as an old guy wearing dhuti kurta. Damm, I am impressed by the dude. Eff everything, I am one of his biggest fans from now. Go Modi !!!!

Originally Posted by Neel Here
ever heard of the ICC ?? they are the ones responsible for spreading cricket around the world. and last I heard ICC has much more money than it ever had thanks to BCCI.

you can add two with two to get what ICC is doing currently for cricket. With that additional money how many new cricket nations are emerging? Take the case with Bangladesh. Within the past 9 years how many times India visited us? How many times no one could touch the BCCI for such mis-managements? BCCI earns money for cricket and that's the way they control the ICC. I am more concerned about cricket; not how much money the ICC gets buy selling themselves to the BCCI.

baundule, chief adviser is in no way one of the top posts, which usually mean the CEO and president.

at most its a middle ranking one. and sharad pawar is in the future, not present is it ?

blaming bcci for something that's not even their job is frankly ridiculous ! not hosting BD is a work of bad faith on their part, no doubt but again, there's no ICC law that says each country has to host every other test playing nation.
and it's not something new, go back in history and find out how eager the australians were to host the subcontinent teams(ind and pak) in the 50's and 60's.

the buck again stops with ICC that they don't have a rule on this.

about the other teams, whose responsibility is it, ICC or the home boards ? there is a limit to how much you can do from outside if the home boards are inept and incompetent.
how did bcci gather so much power and also increase india's cricketing standards ?
they were not half as powerful ten years back !
did they say why ICC is not helping us and blame every other board for that ?

the way to develop is do it yourself and stop blaming others. that's a negative attitude that will only see you going down in a spiral.
we see this habit in sub-continent politicians all the time, it's never their fault.
and the results are also there for us to see.

Originally Posted by Neel Here
baundule, chief adviser is in no way one of the top posts, which usually mean the CEO and president.

at most its a middle ranking one. and sharad pawar is in the future, not present is it ?

The focus was on the BCCI. Lalit Modi is just a part of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neel Here
blaming bcci for something that's not even their job is frankly ridiculous ! not hosting BD is a work of bad faith on their part, no doubt but again, there's no ICC law that says each country has to host every other test playing nation.

There is actually some regulations on that. Each full member must fulfill its mandatory requirement of playing at least two tests and 3 ODIs with each full member. The ftp also schedules who is going to host what. There can be some exceptions based on security issues or something like that. My focus is, the BCCI, with all its money, is not even hosting BD. So, they are not actually contributing to spread cricket. Since they provide the money, ICC can not do anything against them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neel Here
about the other teams, whose responsibility is it, ICC or the home boards ? there is a limit to how much you can do from outside if the home boards are inept and incompetent.
how did bcci gather so much power and also increase india's cricketing standards ?
they were not half as powerful ten years back !
did they say why ICC is not helping us and blame every other board for that ?

The responsibility lies on both sides - the home boards and the ICC. For example, if ICC recognizes the ICL, the home boards can not ban the ICL players. On paper, the home boards are banning their players and BCCI has nothing to do with it. But the fact is, BCCI is indirectly bullying to compel the home boards taking such decisions. You can take the Ranatunga example, how the BCCI reacted when Ranatunga wanted the ICL players to participate in home competitions. Monopoly of the BCCI does not help cricket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neel Here
the way to develop is do it yourself and stop blaming others. that's a negative attitude that will only see you going down in a spiral.
we see this habit in sub-continent politicians all the time, it's never their fault.
and the results are also there for us to see.

Calling white as white is not a negative attitude. If monopoly were good for cricket, then Hitler were ruling the world to make it prosperous.

With the way cricket is and how major nations treat newcomers cricket will never reach the popularity and success of football (soccer for those in the states).

Look at the major nations in football they never refuse to play smaller nations in official competitions (infact they cant). Many big teams even play friendly matches with small teams. The sport is spread around the world because there is little arrogance in the sport.

But in cricket you will see big nations refuse to play smaller nations because they're not good enough for them or they wont make money. Silly and arrogant reasons like that will ensure cricket is just for those who are part of major cricketing nations rather than the WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

Originally Posted by Baundule
The focus was on the BCCI. Lalit Modi is just a part of it.

not sure what you mean by this, the point was whether bcci men are at the top of ICC.
the above sentence is a non sequitur.

Quote:

There is actually some regulations on that. Each full member must fulfill its mandatory requirement of playing at least two tests and 3 ODIs with each full member. The ftp also schedules who is going to host what. There can be some exceptions based on security issues or something like that. My focus is, the BCCI, with all its money, is not even hosting BD. So, they are not actually contributing to spread cricket. Since they provide the money, ICC can not do anything against them.

are you sure about that ? mind if I ask for the quote from the ICC rulebook, no offence(I really mean it !) I really didn't know that.

but as I mentioned bcci not hosting BD is a bad job, sure. but spreading cricket is NOT their job, it's the ICC's job. secondly, hosting BD doesn't count as spreading cricket, cricket is already well spread in BD !!
blaming them for something which is not their responsibility is ridiculous.

taking the example of football, please show me one instance where the national boards have taken initiatives to spread or popularize football. it's ALWAYS the FIFA who does it.

Quote:

The responsibility lies on both sides - the home boards and the ICC. For example, if ICC recognizes the ICL, the home boards can not ban the ICL players.
On paper, the home boards are banning their players and BCCI has nothing to do with it. But the fact is, BCCI is indirectly bullying to compel the home boards taking such decisions. You can take the Ranatunga example, how the BCCI reacted when Ranatunga wanted the ICL players to participate in home competitions. Monopoly of the BCCI does not help cricket.

monopoly of BCCI in what ? cricket in India ?

of course they would defend their turf, are you telling me any other board would have done something else ? try forming a league in BD with big players independent of BCB and then come back and tell us how BCB treats you !
ICC listens to it(as does the other boards) because it is in THEIR interest in the longer term.

understand that ICL is not under the ICC, the money it makes is entirely its own and the ICC doesn't get a penny. and if such a challenger to ICC rises at the international level it would mean utter chaos for the small world of cricket.

to get an idea of what happens when there are competing world bodies look at chess. they had two world bodies FIDE and PCA vying for the top spot. they had two diferent world champions and similar hair-brained results.
you want the same in cricket ?

Quote:

Calling white as white is not a negative attitude. If monopoly were good for cricket, then Hitler were ruling the world to make it prosperous.

sorry sonny, you need to re-read your history books, hitler wasn't a businessman, may be you are talking of bill gates !

neel, I do not know, if it is my lack of language skill; but you are certainly not getting the point 'BCCI is controlling the ICC' and this is not good for cricket.

I find your statements like "sorry sonny, you need to re-read your history books, hitler wasn't a businessman, may be you are talking of bill gates !", "the above sentence is a non sequitur" very offensive. We are here to discuss things within a friendly atmosphere, any side can be wrong or right on anything that we discuss; but I do not understand what makes you make such arrogant comments.

Hitler does not need to be a businessman to be an example of 'monopoly'. He was a dictator in politics and BCCI is a dictator in sport (cricket).

Regarding your question, "are you sure about that ? mind if I ask for the quote from the ICC rulebook, no offence(I really mean it !) I really didn't know that.", if you think that I am talking from the air, you can have a look at the ICC ftp agreement document http://l.yimg.com/t/icccricket/pdfs/ftp_agreement.pdf (article 4.3.b: comprise a minimum of two Test Matches and three ODIs.). None of us knows all about these cricketing rules/laws/agreements/whatsoever. No shame in it. We are here to share our knowledge and thoughts and work for a better cricketing future of Bangladesh.

Thanks.

p.s. you can also find in the same document

"4.1. a. to undertake each of the applicable Tours set out in the Future Tours Programme, fully in accordance with the indicated timings and venues for the same as set out in the Future Tours Programme and detailed in any relevant Tour Format Agreement;andb. that none of them will arrange or participate in any Test Match or ODI Match (orany tour or series including either) with another member during such period asthat member is a Non-Compliant party (see definition of Non-Compliance). Suchperiod being the actual period over which the prescribed Tour was scheduled tohave taken place."

This says a lot of words about respecting the ftp. And then you can search for what the BCCI did with us.

baundule bhai, I'm really sorry if I came across as arrogant, it was not my intention. long day and all that, but no excuses.

I apologise sincerely.
-----------------------------

coming back to the discussion, well, I still fail to understand any relation between monopoly and dictatorship, they are not equivalent which is what your post conveys.

again, ICC may be controlled by bcci (though I fail to see how and you haven't told me that yet) and that is bad if true.

I'm yet to be convinced that this is true. I've explained the ICL issue I think, the home boards surely didn't want a competing cricket body anymore than ICC/bcci wanted but they had the opportunity to use the bcci and ICC's shoulders to do the unpleasant bit of firing.

I'm sorry that you are also apprehensive about my honest question about the ICC rules. thanks a lot for that document !!
two things I want to know,
a) when was the proposed BD tour to ind ? the document only gives FTP from 2006 (I've already mentioned elsewhere that I didn't follow cricket during that time and didn't know of BC !)
b) there's a clause that requires offending members to pay a hefty fine if they don't reciprocate a series(ind had two tours in BD ?) can we get it from some BCB guy if BCCi ever paid that fine ? it sounds really odd if BCCI canceled a series and didn't pay a fine and no one raises a question on that !
even bcci doesn't have that kind of power, to stop a bangali's voice !!

btw, you remember what we started off with ? that bcci is responsible for cricket not spreading. my last word on that, bcci at worst doesn't care if cricket is spread or not (I really don't think that's true, more viewers mean more revenue for bcci)

in practice I can't find a single reason why bcci will want to stop spread of cricket.
also, I do think cricket is spreading much more rapidly in the last few years with countries like afg, namibia and holland coming up. at the end of the day, I can't agree with that statement of yours !
regards !

I do not know, if they have paid some fines or managed things with the BCB in some other ways; but surely they did not host us even for once during the past years and still got away. Now, you can say, why BCB does not raise its voice. This is the irony. If you raise your voice against them, you will find yourself in a difficult situation (monopoly/dictator effect). This has happened to Pakistan, this has happened to Ranatunga. After the Mumbai killing, England did visit India; but India cancelled their tours with Pakistan.

Now, again, you are theoretically correct that ICC is responsible for spreading cricket; but that is not happening in practice, Pakistan cricket is dead, they did not play a single test match in a year time period, Zimbabwe can not play test, Kenya is gone. Afganistan and Holland are not new to cricket. We used to lose regularly against Holland in the ICC trophy.

Along with the respective home boards and governments, the BCCI and other influencial cricket boards share their responsibilities for such situations. The ICL is a prime example. BCCI does not like the ICL; but what has it to do with other boards? New Zealand and Pakistan are half teams, because they do/can not select the ICL players. Why the BCB has to ban ICLers for 10 years? What happened to Ranatunga after he wanted the ICLers to play domestic cricket? On paper, respective boards are free to choose their squad; but in practice, the BCCI is who decides things for cricket. Now, as they have proposed to withdraw bans (after a cooling period of one year) from the ICL players, you'll find the other boards are also doing the same.

Now about spreading cricket. Tournaments like the ICL and APL (proposed American Premier League) can help spreading cricket. But they will not be recognised by the ICC or by the BCCI. In Bangladesh, now we are having our PCL (Port City League), approved by the board, which does help spreading cricket. The same should be the effect of ICL, APL and so on. BCB can approve the PCL; but has to ban (for 10 years) players playing in a foreign league , because BCCI did not approve that league (does it go for spreading cricket?). Now apply your commonsense, who is in control of whom and what.